THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF THIS BLOG IS TO SHARE WITH THE READER ISSUES OF HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY GLOBAL SIGNIFICANCE FROM A PROGRESSIVE PERSPECTIVE.
ORDER OF MOST READERS OF THIS BLOG: USA, RUSSIA, FRANCE, UNITED KINGDOM, GERMANY, UKRAINE,CANADA, INDIA,and CHINA.

Tuesday, 27 June 2017

History is not
on the side of the US Democratic Party and not just because Republicans control
all branches of government and dominate in legislatures in 32 states and
governorships in 33 states. Just as there
is not much of a centrist or leftist challenge to bourgeois political parties
around the world, the rightwing trend of American politics seems unstoppable as
it has been gaining momentum since the Reagan-Thatcher decade in the 1980s. The
trend of conservative politics is not confined to the US, but it has become
global largely because centrist parties, even those in Europe under the label
Socialist have moved to the globalization, neoliberal and austerity camp.

Because a number
of European and US conservative positions held just by mainstream conservative
parties are also held by neo-Fascists, the liberal center has moved to the
right instead of the left as genuine opposition. Partly because of the collapse
of Communism and the US-EU war on terror and military intervention in
Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria, rightwing populism embracing Islamophobia,
xenophobia, homophobia, racism, misogyny, and anti-union and anti-labor sentiment
has swept up even centrist political elements.

By embracing a
militarist foreign policy and the war on terror, with reverberations on
immigration and refugee policy the liberal centrists in Europe and the US have
permitted the right to define patriotism as xenophobia, militarism and police
state policies. Even worse, the liberal centrists have contributed to the
alienation of the masses by embracing globalization, neoliberal policies and
austerity measures that have resulted in massive capital concentration. There
is something seriously wrong when just eight people own as much wealth as half
of the earth’s population or 3.6 billion people. https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2017-01-16/just-8-men-own-same-wealth-half-world

In the US, the
Democrats have chosen to deviate so far from the party of Franklin D. Roosevelt
to the degree that their positions on foreign and defense policies and the
economy and labor policy are not so far apart from their Republican counterparts
who have moved much more to the right than Dwight D. Eisenhower’s party in the
1950s. Committed to capitalism and expansionism as the Republicans, the
Democratic Party underwent some significant changes on its approach both to
domestic and foreign policy first under President Woodrow Wilson (1912-1920)
committed to the Progressive Era agenda of securing greater regulation of the
economy through a stronger central government role and pursuing a multilateral
foreign policy outside the Western Hemisphere while maintaining unilateralism
in inter-American relations. Building on the Wilsonian legacy, Roosevelt
expanded the role of the central government and established the foundations of
the welfare state that John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson continued after it had
been weakened under both presidents Truman and Eisenhower who were more focused
on strengthening capital and the military industrial complex at the expense of
labor and the civilian economy.

By the 1990s
under Bill Clinton, the Democrats were closely allied with Wall Street,
especially Goldman Sachs that has a history of ubiquitous influence in policy
regardless of who is in office. To placate its middle class base, the Democrats
espoused lifestyle/cultural diversity as compensation which hardly made up for chronic
downward social mobility with no end in sight. The Clinton neoliberal policies
and globalization continued under Obama whose presidency resulted in massive
wealth transfer.

In September
2013, Obama admitted that 95% of the income gains since he had taken office
went to the top 1% of the wealthiest Americans. In 2016, 620 billionaires owned $2.6 trillion in an economy with a GDP of $18.5 trillion. As the cost of living continued
to rise and uneven income distribution became worse, the public perception of
the Democrats was that they were elitist liberals. This elitist Wall
Street-linked image was exposed by Democratic presidential candidate Bernie
Sanders during the presidential campaign of 2016, thus exposing the reality
that the “peoples’ party” was really in the pockets of the wealthiest Americans
who donated generously to make sure that their privileged role in society
remained strong.

Instead of
ending the corporate welfare and neoliberal policies of Ronald Reagan and
George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton continued gutting the welfare system and
strengthening corporate welfare while pursuing neoliberal policies with greater
speed. On the wrong side of history, the Democratic Party decided to take this
route because it benefited Wall Street rather than the middle class and workers
as it claimed. Obama followed Clinton’s path. In 2016, presidential candidate
Hillary Clinton vowed to do the same, betting on identity politics at a time
when class politics was the only winning strategy as Trump’s victory to the
White House proved.

After losing the
election, Democrats remained on the wrong side of history by placing all of
their hopes on the investigation of Russia’s alleged meddling in the US election.
While they hope that the investigation into Russia’s alleged meddling in the US
election and President Donald Trump’s recklessness would save them from self-imposed
decline in local and national elections, they have deluded themselves into
believing that because a large segment of the corporate media and well-paid neoliberal
analysts keep repeating what Democrats and Wall Street want them to say that is
all they need. Using the “Russia card” is a calculating decision to be on the wrong
side of history, essentially stuck in the Cold War neoliberal-corporate welfare
past; on the wrong side of their own popular base, which in 2016 demonstrated
it wanted a progressive agenda such as the one that Senator Bernie

Sanders was
offering when he ran against the Wall Street candidate Hillary Clinton.

Instead of
embracing the future, the Democrats have decided to fight against their own
base and to move it to the right ideologically and politically by vilifying and
covertly undermining Sanders and his followers. Naively, they are hoping that
such an approach of embracing the past and rejecting the future would somehow
endear themselves to the voter who would otherwise stay home and permit
rightwing demagogues the be elected by delusional and frustrated Republican
voters hoping that the Messiah is just around the corner to save them from
political decline. Democrat illusions about embracing the past will not carry
them into future victories as they hope, unless there is a very deep recession
as was the case in 2008 under George W. Bush.

The Republican
and Democratic parties have a long history of more policy similarities than
differences, especially in post-WWII foreign and defense policy but also trade,
monetary, and economic domains. However, the two parties also have some
differences after Franklin D. Roosevelt expanded the party base to make it more
inclusive by bringing into the wide tent not just women and minorities, but
labor unions and those on the ideological left at a time that radicalization of
the masses had hit a record owing to the Great Depression. FDR strengthened the
central government, not weakened it through neoliberal policies variations of
which were more closely linked to his predecessors responsible for the Great
Depression.

Representing the
capitalist system and operating within its institutional confines, both parties
have historic ties to the socioeconomic elites that agree on the goals of maintaining
the social order but do not always agree ideologically and on the means of
achieving those goals. There have always been billionaires ideologically driven
on the extreme rightwing advocating harsh treatment toward labor unions, women,
and minorities, just as there have been billionaires who have had a more
benevolent approach toward the masses. In our time, the Koch brothers are on
the extreme right wing ideological side of politics, advocating cutting all
social welfare programs including Medicaid and privatizing social security, and
threatening not to provide campaign contributions until senators and
congressmen voted to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (OBAMACARE)
which would in effect transfer an estimated $800 billion into the pocket of the
richest Americans over a ten-year period.

On the
liberal-identity politics side, there are a number of prominent billionaires
among them George Soros who supports a rationalized capitalist system rather
than one that creates shocks and disequilibrium. The massive capital
concentration and downward social mobility since the early 1980s has made it
very difficult for elites on both sides to maintain the support of the masses,
just as it has in Europe. However, it is not difficult to understand workers
and middle class people with eroding living standards opting for the billionaire
businessman politician – a Silvio Berlusconi type – as the hollow savior of
society applying business principles to government only to discover government
is not a real estate company.

Given the
dominance of Wall Street in politics, both political parties have drifted to
the right on economic issues that only hasten downward socioeconomic
mobilization. On cultural/lifestyles the Democrats maintain their identity
politics approach of catering to the economic elites without addressing
underlying living standards issues, thus losing their popular base to apathy
and to Republican populists. Republicans have moved even more to right
ideologically to the degree that they could easily be confused with a
neo-Fascist European party. In fact, it was hardly a surprise that all
rightwing European parties applauded the election of Donald Trump as did many
authoritarian world leaders.

Remarkably, the
Republicans are more effective with their propaganda campaign because they
deliver on social/cultural/religious conservatism through Supreme Court
nominees, gun rights, more police-state powers, cutting funding from social
programs, etc. By managing to identify the rightwing agenda with patriotism and
any opposition as un-American, Republicans have taken the country back to the
Joseph McCarthy of the 1950s when accusation of treason were made in order to
silence all dissent and enforce conformity.

Democrats have
been less effective propagandists because their cultural/lifestyle identity
politics entails funding certain social welfare programs such as Planned
Parenthood, school lunches, healthcare, tolerance and advocacy for gays and
lesbians, etc. without addressing a holistic policy from a class perspective
that takes care of peoples’ material needs first while promoting social justice.
Bernie Sanders was correct when he observed that of the two major presidential
candidates in 2016 only Trump framed the debate in class terms while Clinton
dismissed it as divisive.

Both parties are
struggling to balance the corporate welfare state with the social welfare
state, as the Republican attempt to roll back OBAMACARE has proved. Democrats
advocating a more gradual approach of its downsizing and a bit stronger central
government than the Republicans prefer. Both parties have supported massive tax
corporate breaks with many highly profitable corporations like General Electric
as an example are paying zero taxes while receiving subsidies and loans that the
government guarantees.

The US economy is
not rising as rapidly as it did in the early Cold War as the International
Monetary Fund, Federal Reserve Bank and most economists agree that 2% average annual
GDP growth is realistic despite low unemployment. Considering that both parties
support a defense sector that only adds billions to the public debt and a
fiscal system unsustainable owing to 2% annual growth, the American economic
pie is becoming too small for all to share given the existing fiscal structure
and corporate welfare system. Because both parties depend on campaign
contributions from the wealthiest Americans and yield to the influence of
powerful corporate lobbies, they make sure that the economic pie is divided
unevenly to favor very heavily the top 1% of the wealthy. The Republican proposed
health care repeal bill included cutting benefits from 750,000 Medicaid
recipients in order to transfer those savings in the form of tax cuts into the
pockets of 400 of the wealthiest families. While Democrats oppose such a
Draconian measure, they also have a record since the 1990s of supporting income
transfer from the bottom up. Even under Reagan, many of them voted for tax cuts
to the rich and for corporate welfare measures. https://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/6/22/1674114/-Trumpcare-tax-cuts-to-nation-s-400-wealthiest-families-is-Medicaid-blood-money

Convincing voters
to support them means that either politicians must blatantly lie that they will
raise living standards and keep unemployment low and living standards high, as
did Trump in 2016, or promise to keep the system open so as to integrate
socioeconomically a segment of women, minorities, gay and lesbian groups into
the mainstream while the rest can enjoy the absence of institutional
persecution, as did Clinton and her supporters in congress. Given the choices
that the two parties present, voters have the option to vote their ideological leanings
and aspirations, to vote against the party they deem a threat to their
ideological leanings and lifestyle, or to remain apathetic as is the case with
about 40-50% of the voters.

In a society
with a long-standing tradition of individualism and ideological opposition not
only to collectivist but even to communitarian values rooted in Christianity
and social justice, it is far easier for Republicans to prevail as they turn
all focus on the individual as the culprit of everything from structural
cyclical swings in the economy and unemployment to inability to attend college.
They attribute no accountability to the institutional structure in which the
individual operates. Moreover, the Republicans also enjoy the advantage of
chronic brainwashing that all solutions rest with God and Wall Street, not with
public policy except when it comes to providing even more support for business
such as corporate welfare. No matter the problems corporations cause for the
capitalist economy and social dislocation, a business-like solution for
government, education and healthcare is presented as the ideal solution by both
political parties.

People have
accepted as “natural” bailing out banks, insurance companies and other sectors
such as the automobile or steel industry. However, they object to any funding
for school lunches to feed children too poor to afford lunch. Billions for
defense, football stadium subsidies, tax breaks and loan guarantees for
corporate America, but not a dime for the poor; and all in the name of
democracy! This mindset is no different than what prevailed in early 19th
century England when Parliament introduced the “Poor Laws” of 1834 (Poor Law
Amendment) intended to reduce taxes on the wealthy by cutting money going to
sustain the poor which the Industrial Revolution had created. Despite 21st
century US policies in the spirit of the English Poor Law of 1834, American
politicians of both parties present the US as the democratic “leader” that the
rest of the world must emulate, although its record on human rights and social
justice is not much different than a Third World country. Of 31 advanced
capitalist countries, the US ranks near the bottom, not just under Trump but
also Obama. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/27/social-justice_n_1035363.html

In this respect, both political parties share
responsibility for choosing to embrace the past, to be on the wrong side of
history, even by the admission of Republican Ohio Governor Kasich who argued
that neither party cares for the poor. In the century when the transition from
American global economic hegemony will be transferring to East Asia, things
will only deteriorate for American global economic competitiveness and for the
middle class and workers. Throughout the Cold War, there were Democrats who
were much more hawkish on foreign policy than Republicans, but held more
moderate domestic policy views rooted in watered-down versions of the New Deal,
including supporting labor unions. Since the 1990s, the Democratic Party has
abandoned its New Deal roots completely and embraced the neoliberal agenda.

Can the
Republicans be “out-Republicaned” by Cold War neoliberal Democrats using the
Russia threat as rallying cry to win elections while decrying class politics
and embracing identity politics as a catalyst to party unification? The widespread perception is that Democrats
are elitist hypocrites to the degree that Senator Al Franken proposed that they
stop riding around in limousines to end the stereotypical perception the public
has of them. If only that were a realistic solution rather than substantive
policy changes to improve peoples’ lives! What if FDR had proposed the same
thing during the Great Depression instead of pursuing New Deal policies to save
capitalism from self-destruction and to save the pluralistic society from
lapsing into a Fascist-type state?

The Bankrupt Democratic
Party

The US has one
of the lowest voting participation rates among developed nations at 55% in
2016, and one of the lowest in the world ranking below 26 other nations
including neighboring Mexico and Canada. Only slightly more than half of registered
voters participate in elections, a manifestation of widespread apathy and cynicism
about the political system especially among young people that do not see it
representing them and questioning that it is democratic. The lack of
participation and lack of confidence in the political system best serves the
wealthy whose campaign contributions through Political Action Committees (PAC),
lobbying firms, or direct campaign contributions maintains the status quo
catering to the top ten percent of the wealthiest Americans, with a sizeable
percentage still aspiring for upward mobility and believing in the system as
they believe in God and afterlife.

The majority,
however, as Republican Ohio Governor John Kasich and Independent Senator Bernie
Sanders have stated have lost faith because they realize the institutional
structure does not address their needs. Trump’s election, a billionaire TV reality
show as president, with a cabinet made up of billionaires and generals, and
policies designed to transfer wealth from the middle class and poor to the
pockets of the wealthy speaks volumes of how the system actually works to
maintain a powerful wealthy class and imperial policy of militarism on a global
scale. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/05/15/u-s-voter-turnout-trails-most-developed-countries/

As far as the
Democratic Party is concerned, what passes for “democracy” comes in the form of
criticizing Russia for meddling in the US election in 2016, as though the
problem with American democracy does not rest internally but outside the
country with an easily identifiable historic enemy needed to justify not just
the obsolete NATO whose purpose is militarism and expansionism of the West, but
also the strengthening of the defense industries. The Democrats have convinced
themselves that blaming domestic institutional problems on a foreign enemy is
an effective way to mobilize a segment of the popular base of the Democratic
Party under the militarist Cold War wing that also embraces economic policies
responsible for massive wealth concentration and the decline of the middle
class.

Most people have
no problem externalizing internal problems, especially blaming Russia. However,
the down side is that this strategy works only with a segment of the Democratic
Party’s popular base, but it does nothing for the majority of the voters as the
special congressional election results indicated in the first six months of the
Trump presidency when Republican candidates defeated their democratic
challengers. This reflects largely the reality that Democrats are weak and
remain on the wrong side of history, even with a highly unpopular president who
constantly dismisses the Russia meddling allegations as a hoax and fake news.

The money trail
of the Trump family and cabinet officials’ involvement with major banks like
Deutsche Bank is far more significant pointing to corruption than the Russian
political investigation that is difficult to prove even if every aspect of it
is true. Ideologically and politically acceptable by Wall Street and the
defense industry, the Russia-Trump issue remains center stage to the point of
‘crying wolf’ tests the credulity even of the most faithful voters. The issue
can never assume full legitimacy because it will always encounter resistance
from Republicans who see it as political payback by Democrats.

Pointing to
corrupt practices by banks is a legitimate and provable matter but contrary to
the neoliberal ideological framework in which both parties operate. The Democratic
Party’s goal is to prevent the popular base from veering toward a more
progressive leader like Senator Bernie Sanders. The Cold War neoliberal Democrats
who lined up behind Clinton and Obama have failed to convince voters that
Russian election meddling is the only thing that matters in their lives rather
than all other concerns from living standards to the prospects of their
children experiencing the real possibility of downward socioeconomic mobility.

The Democratic
popular base is sharply divided because the neoliberal-corporate welfare wing
is on the wrong side of history, while the grassroots wing wants systemic
changes and distancing of politics from Wall Street money. The Cold War
neoliberal elites’ agenda that is only slightly less pro-capital anti-labor and
anti-middle class than what the Republicans offer is hardly convincing to
progressives who would otherwise vote Democrat.The more progressive Keynesian (New Deal) agenda that has a class
approach to the social contract rather than identity politics approach has
historically worked to mobilize voters into the Democratic Party only to have
them deceived by broken promises about higher living standards.

Regardless of domestic
policies, the pursuit of economic imperialism backed by aggressive militarism
is always at the core of US foreign policy. This complicates matters in the
early 21st century when the debt-to-GDP ratio is around 110% and
rapidly rising cutting into living standards of the middle class and workers.
Keynesian policies are less palatable to the elites that both political parties
serve and find it increasingly difficult to balance their role as servants of
capital and sustaining the façade of an open pluralistic society based on a
strong middle class.

There is a very
real possibility that the Democratic Party will prevail over the Republicans
either in the congressional elections of 2018 or in the presidential race of
2020. This is not because President Trump and the Republicans will be popular
or scandal-free by any means, considering they are already immersed in scandals
involving their capitulation to corporate lobbying. Of the 56.7% who voted in
2016, Trump received about 3 million fewer popular votes than Clinton in 2016,
thus he represents a small minority of the population, if we just focus on
actual numbers rather than the Electoral College. However, because the
Democrats are not very different in policy from their opponents in representing
Wall Street and militarism, voter apathy will continue and this works against
Democrats, especially if the economy remains fairly steady and does not lapse
into recession.

Not surprising,
most Democrat politicians and analysts believe that the unpopularity of the
presidency combined with an incessant media assault on the influence of Russia
in the US election of 2016 will translate into electoral successes during the
congressional elections of 2018 and presidential election of 2020. This assumes
that the majority prefers the Democratic Party with its current identity
politics agenda because the Republican president is likely to become weaker as
a result of the Russia investigation that would presumably uncover direct or
indirect links. The fallacy here is that just because about two-thirds of
Americans believe there is something to the Trump-Russian interference story,
the majority will vote Democrat instead of Republican or staying home.

While the
percentage of registered Democrats is 3-6 points higher than Republicans, the
cross-over voters, Independents and people in the apathy category decide
election results. What are the chances that Independent, cross-over and apathy
voters will cast a ballot on no issue other than the ad-nauseam Trump-Russia
investigation assuming the economy remains fairly steady? The assumption that
Cold War neoliberal elites represent the majority of the people is even more
arrogant and self-deceptive than the assumption that Republicans embrace in
courting religious and social conservatives. Clearly, ideology plays a role and
Americans have been moving to the right ideologically ever since Truman, but
that does not necessarily help Democrats who have had a role in moving the electorate
to the right but suffer an image of ‘liberal elitism.’

As an
alternative to the Republicans, the Democratic Party is in serious trouble regardless
of Trump’s reckless conduct, violation of protocol if not the constitution, and
unpopular policies like repealing OBAMACARE backed by the Republican Party. It is
delusional to believe that a Republican congress will sacrifice its own party
by impeaching its leader, even if his popularity dips below 30%. On the
contrary, the Republicans are actually more cohesive and unified both as a
party and as a popular base than the Democrats who remain as divided as they
were when Sanders challenged Clinton in 2016. The Democratic Party’s deep
divisions rest with its pro-Wall Street, pro-militarist policies, while catering
to the cultural needs of disparate social/cultural/lifestyle groups and
maintaining a social integration policy of elites only from all social groups.

Even if congress
were to impeach Trump as many Clinton-Obama supporters dream, the Democrat
Party on its present course will not capture the majority in the House and the
Senate and it will certainly not win the majority of governorships and state
legislatures either in 2018 or in 2020. Praying that more revelations about
Russia would save the Democrats is just one of the many illusions that afflict
them collectively, but hardly the only one considering they are oblivious to
the enormous chasm between the elitist nature of the party and the aspirations
of people who would otherwise vote for it if it were truly democratic.

According to
public opinion polls taken in June 2017, Trump’s popularity ranged from 36 to
41%. Public approval of congressional Democrats was a mere 30%, much lower than
Trump’s popularity. These figures, which do not even take into account the
apathy voting bloc, illustrate that the people hardly view the Democrats as an
alternative to Republicans and Trump’s “billionaires and generals” cabinet.
While the majority has serious questions about Trump as a leader who seems to
have a casual relationship with the truth about everything from policy to his
taxes and inter-personal relations, most people do not believe that the
Democrats are the party to represent the average American.

In spite of a
massive corporate media blitz focusing on the Trump administration’s possible
links to Russian officials, and Trump’s low approval ratings, the Democrats
have not benefited and they are unlikely to benefit in 2018 or 2020, especially
if the economy does not lapse into recession. The popularity of Democrats dropped
from 45% in November 2016 to 40% in May 2017, representing a mere 1% above
Republican popularity. The lack of confidence in either party and in the
president at levels not seen since the Nixon-Watergate crisis points to a
crisis of confidence in the system itself and its failure to address problems
of the average American.

Insider Theories on the
Problems of the Democrat Party

1.The “Democratic Brand” is tarnished. Besides the issue of whether this is
self-inflicted, the implication is that a political party is no different than
marketing a product like laundry detergent. Therefore, a marketing campaign to
alter peoples’ perceptions is all that is needed rather than change in a
platform that aims to improve peoples’ lives. If only a better marketing campaign
were undertaken to promote the “Democratic Brand” so people would buy it
whether it is good for them or not then voters would support it!

2.There is a lack of charismatic candidates and that is the real reason for electoral defeats. Considering
that the cult of personality works as Trump has become the personification of
it, why shouldn’t Democrats use it as was the case with Kennedy and even Obama
who was heavy on symbolism and very light on substance? Policies do not matter
as long as the party presents some charismatic individual (s) with as much
populist appeal as Trump. Why not promote a Democratic Party cult of
personality and keep on with Cold War militarism and neoliberal policies of the
past, continuing to ignore living standards problems afflicting the majority of
voters?

3.Nancy Pelosi is to blame otherwise Democrats would have been winning. If only
there was a partly leadership change that would fix all problems! Pelosi is the
personification of identity Cold War neoliberal politics and that is something
that alienates a large segment of voters. Prejudice, sexism and misogyny are
real, but even if the Virgin Mary was the congressional leader of the Cold War
neoliberal Democrats one has to wonder whether people would flock to them
simply because they were captivated by new and pure leadership. Once again,
this is a pretext not to address policies but to focus on leadership
personalities.

4.Bernie Sanders is to blame because he divides the party to which he does not
belong. In other words, the millions of people who voted for Sanders really
preferred Clinton and her policies. Sanders just had to ruin it for her by
refusing to drop out early and by pursuing his quest to take the Democratic
Party toward a more progressive path. It is only because of Sanders that the Democratic
Party’s agenda and image is stigmatized as too liberal, whereas the “Democratic
Brand” everyone knows is much more conservative. Because some identify the
party with Sanders the “Socialist”, Democrats cannot win elections because the
voters have moved to the right not the left as Sanders insists. The
Sanders-Clinton schism for the party precludes a unified front against
Republicans, thus the progressive wing must subordinate itself to the
conservative wing so Democrats can start winning again.

5.Organizational structure needs revamping because there is a divide between the local and state
party structure vs. the national one. The idea would be to subordinate the
local-state party structure, which has been under Clinton-Obama neoliberal
control, so that any progressive Keynesian elements do not undermine the
party’s cohesiveness rooted in identity politics that is itself an innate
source of lack of cohesiveness. In short, party discipline even if it means
supporting a party on the wrong side of history is all it takes to win.

6.More
effective ideological propaganda is needed to counter Republican and rightwing media propaganda. No one
who lives in America is unaware that the corporate media is divided between the
populist rightwing propaganda sector led by FOX NEWS, on one side, and the Cold
War neoliberal sector that are most of the networks, New York Times, Washington
Post, etc. on the other with nothing other than alternative news and analysis
on the web. How much propaganda between rightwing populism bordering on Fascism
and neoliberal Cold War propaganda can the public take before it switches to
social media and the web for something other than the same thing? Nevertheless,
Democrats believe their problem is insufficient propaganda, belying their
underlying belief that policy issues affecting peoples’ lives do not matter
only their perception; a cynical Machiavellian view that Republicans also share.

7.The electoral system and gerrymandering helps GOP and Republican legislative measures discourage voters
from coming to the polls. It is true that marginally this helps Republicans. It
is just as true that this hardly explains Republican electoral successes at all
levels of government.

8.Republicans are better liars than Democrats and enjoy the backing of billionaires,
PACs, and conservative think tanks that mold public opinion against Democrats.
All of this is true, just as it is true that people have fallen into a
rightwing ideological mold which the Democrats have helped to shape with the
Cold War militarist and neoliberal policies. It is just as true that lying is
hardly the exclusive domain of Republicans and that lying is effective up to a
point when the material lives of people deteriorate to the degree of
intolerance.

9.Democrats are identified with social elites, minorities and women rather than the middle class
and working class. One reason a nationally obscure politician who was not even
a Democrat managed to become a viable Democrat candidate for president in 2016
is because he addressed real issues and framed them in class terms. Whereas
most people, including her supporters identified Clinton with the elites, they
believed Sanders was a true representative of the young, the middle class, workers
and the future of where the Democratic Party ought to be. Yet, the Clinton-Obama
controlled Democratic Party refuses to abandon its militarist-neoliberal agenda
neatly wrapped in identity politics, preferring instead to project the image
that it represents the people by not riding in limousines!

10.Tighter
party control of the state machinery and dominance of the DNC. Although the DNC is
dominated by the Cold War neoliberal elements that backed Clinton, often
through manipulative tactics, with only symbolic gestures of accommodation
toward the Sanders wing of the party, there are those who want greater party
discipline and to silence dissent that advocates revisiting New Deal policies.
The assumption is that if no one gives a forum to dissenters, then people will
have no choice but to support the candidates the party hierarchy offers.
History has shown that a sizeable number of people actually stay home or vote
for Republican or third party candidate if the Democrats are offering nothing
of substance to address living standards.

In the 1970s,
Arthur Okun came up with the misery index to measure unemployment and inflation.
In spring 2017, the official unemployment rate was 4.4%, although the real
unemployment rate was at 8.6%. Considering that about 20% of the employment
rate is attributed to part time workers and that more than one-third of people
under the age of 30 have more than one job; and considering that labor hours on
a weekly average have not changed while downward pressure on wages against
rising cost of housing, education and health, it is not surprising that the
misery index in the US is high in comparison to most industrialized nations. To
be on the right side of history, the Democrats must address the misery index. Instead
of looking for excuses on why they lose elections, they need to examine why
two-thirds of the people believe the country is on the wrong track.

For Republicans
it is easier to prevail in elections than it is for Democrats because the
former use a combination of blaming liberals, minorities, Muslims, Mexicans and
above all “big government” for all the ills in society. For Republicans the
country is on the wrong track because foreigners, petty criminals, and liberals
are to blame. Republicans essentially use the same weapons as the church in the
Middle Ages of demanding loyalty and conformity to authority with the knowledge
that is the reward for “being an American”.

Democrats have a
much more difficult task because they are swimming in an ocean of contradictions,
promising to cater to disparate social/cultural groups while delivering the
benefits to Wall Street from where their campaign contributions originate. The
irreconcilable differences in their “bit tent” identity politics approach
combined with a shrinking economy unable to compete globally as it was in the
first two decades after WWII presents greater challenges for the Democratic
Party. Of course, its neoliberal leadership could opt to embrace a Keynesian
model, but that will probably have to wait until the next Great Depression,
most likely in the 2030s. If not, then a form of a neo-Fascist state will
become a reality.

Wednesday, 14 June 2017

On 14 June
2017, Steve Scalise, House Majority Whip and Louisiana Congressman, was wounded by a gunman - small businessman James Hodgkinson, 66 - who opened fire at a
baseball park in Alexandria, VA where several legislators and their aides were
practicing. Gun violence in America is more prevalent than in any other country
in the world. However, instead of treating gun violence as a
public health crisis, many politicians, including the unfortunate victim of gun
violence congressman Scalise, remain steadfastly defenders of espousing the
legislative agenda of the National Rifle Association (NRA) and gun
manufacturers.

While
Scalise and three others were the tragic victims of gun violence, the conservative lawmaker has been in
the forefront of supporting initiatives for easing any restrictions on weapons,
including laws on concealed guns, purchasing and carrying across state lines. Along
with half of the Louisiana House delegation, Scalise voted against an Obama
sponsored bill, which ultimately passed, intended to protect victim of sexual
assault, domestic violence and staking. Although there must be the strongest
possible condemnation for what happened to Scalise on 14 June 2017, the way to
deal with it effectively is through the legislative process so that others
would not be victimized as he was by a gunman clearly not of sound mind and driven by a psychology of violence prevalent in society.

The gunman in the Scalise case used a rifle, possibly a semi-automatic and fired an estimated 50 rounds. Just as the attack on Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and six other victims
falling to gunfire by an allegedly mentally disturbed young man was a 'TAXI-DRIVER' type episode, similarly, the Scalise attack appears to be similar. Just as the Giffords case was a manifestation of raising
extremism to the level of encouraging half-crazed individuals
to commit political crimes, similarly, the Scalise case appears to be not much different. Politicians whose pro-2nd Amendment pro-NRA policies combined with a police-state solutions to sociopolitical problems will be seeking even more militarist-police-state approaches to societal violence rather than dressing root causes.

Scalise
signed H.R.197&S.845 - January 2009

Establishes a national standard for the carrying of concealed firearms
(other than a machinegun or destructive device) by non-residents. Authorizes a
person who has a valid permit to carry a concealed firearm in one state and who
is not prohibited from carrying a firearm under federal law to carry a
concealed firearm in another state:

Loosening restrictions on
interstate gun purchases.

·allow licensed firearms dealers to sell or deliver any firearm
(currently, rifles or shotguns) to any state if the licensee meets with the
purchaser and the transaction complies with the laws of the state in which the
transfer is conducted and the purchaser's state of residence; and

·eliminate the requirement that a licensee must conduct business at a gun
show only in the state that is specified on the licensee's license.

·Nothing in this Act shall prohibit the sale of a firearm or ammunition
between licensed firearms dealers at any location in any state.

Proponent's Comments (NRA-ILA, Oct. 14, 2011): This bill would
remove several antiquated and unnecessary restrictions imposed on interstate
firearms business since 1968:

Virtually
all interstate transfers directly between private citizens are banned; so
are nearly all interstate handgun sales by licensed dealers.

Firearms
dealers may only do business at their licensed premises or (since 1986) at
gun shows in their own state.

Dealers
may not even transfer firearms to one another face to face, away from
their business premises.

Allow veterans to register unlicensed
guns acquired abroad.

Scalise
co-sponsored Veterans' Heritage Firearms Act – March 2011

Provides a
90-day amnesty period during which veterans and their family members can
register in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record any
firearm acquired before October 31, 1968, by a veteran while a member of
the Armed Forces stationed outside the continental United States.

Grants
such an individual limited immunity with respect to the acquisition,
possession, transportation, or alteration of such firearm before or
concurrent with such registration.

Extends
such immunity to a veteran who attempts to register a qualifying firearm
outside of the amnesty period if the veteran surrenders the firearm within
30 days after being notified of potential criminal liability for continued
possession.

“This (gun control restrictions and
fines) is an attempt to try to bully and intimidate people from selling guns
and from buying guns and goes around the laws that are already on the books.
The President is not even enforcing existing law. That's where he should focus,
but frankly he's trying to change the subject and get away from the fact that
he hasn't been able to defeat ISIS. The President is trying to impose $250,000
fines against people. Look, these are law-abiding citizens we are talking
about. These aren't criminals. The President won't even go after people who
broke existing federal law. Why doesn't he do that? Why doesn't he focus on his
job instead of trying to usurp the role of Congress and trump the constitution
and the Second Amendment that is so sacred to our nation's founding. You have
already got a system that works. In fact, what the President is talking about
wouldn't even go after some of these shootings that we all have denounced, we
pray for the victims. The President tries to criticize people who pray for the
victims. He just wants to talk about gun control in a broader sense. And he
doesn't stop here by the way, Jake. If you look at what he's proposed in the
past, it goes far beyond this.” “Anybody that thinks this is where the
President wants to end, this is just the beginning. He has a history of wanting
to take away the gun rights of law-abiding citizens, and we're not going to
stand for it.”

On 30 December 2014, Nancy Pelosi's spokesperson Drew Hammill expressed the deep reservations of Scalise owing to the Louisiana congressman's ties to the KKK and David Duke.

"Whip Scalise’s involvement with a group classified by the
Anti-Defamation League as anti-Semitic and the Southern Poverty Law
Center as a hate group is deeply troubling for a top Republican leader
in the House. However, actions speak louder than whatever Steve Scalise
said to that group in 2002. Just this year, House Republicans have
refused to restore the Voting Rights Act or pass comprehensive
immigration reform, and leading Republican members are now actively
supporting in the federal courts efforts by another known extremist
group, the American Center for Law and Justice, which is seeking to
overturn the President’s immigration executive actions. Speaker
Boehner’s silence on this matter is yet another example of his
consistent failure to stand up to the most extreme elements of his
party.”

Any form of violence is reprehensible and everyone with any moral fiber must condemn it and do whatever possible to prevent it. At the same time, one wonders if legislators like Scalise, now a victim of gun violence, whose voting record on guns and violence speaks for itself will change his position once he has fully recovered from his injuries and goes back to work. Just as gun violence increased along with efforts to ease gun restrictions after the Giffords shooting, I have no doubt that Republicans like Scalise will not deviate from the policies that are partly to blame for what happened to Scalise on 14 June 2014.

The culture of American violence with tentacles in everything from ideology and politics to profits for gun manufacturers and the NRA will become much worse as the country has lapsed toward a quasi-authoritarian state structure. There is
something seriously wrong with a society’s moral compass when its major form of
entertainment as well news programs has violence at its core reflecting its
core values. Many scholars argue that owing to the pervasive nature of violence in
the mainstream (commercial) culture, many people, including young people, are
desensitized and accept violence as “normal” because it is at the core of secular
Western culture. Gun violence is society that is so pervasive will invariably reach everyone from the underprivileged black kids in the inner city to the highly privileged white male conservative lawmakers that make it possible for guns to be so readily available.

"A
gripping, passion-filled, and suspenseful tale of love, betrayal,
political and religious intrigue, this novel entices the reader’s
senses and intellect beyond conventions. Slaves to Gods and Demons
takes the reader through a roller coaster enthralling journey of
personal trials and triumphs of a family emerging vanquished and
destitute after World War II.

Narrated by a young boy, Morfeos, modeled after the Greco-Roman pagan
deity of sleep and dreams, the book reveals the soul of a people trying
to ascertain and assert their identity while rebuilding their lives and
recapturing the glory of a lost civilization.

Seeking liberation from restraints of time, social conventions, and
binding traditions, the deity of dreams provides the conformist and the
free-spirited characters in the novel with venues for redemption that
are mere paths toward illusions. Exploring the complexities of human
relationships shaped by priest and politician alike, the novel rests on
the central theme that life is invariably a series of illusions, some
of which are euphoric, most horrifying, all an integral part of daily
existence.

Striving for purpose amid life’s absurdities after the destruction of
western civilization in two global wars, the characters in Slaves to
Gods and Demons struggle between holding on to the glory and grandeur of
a pagan legacy and the Christian present shaped by contemporary
secular events in Western Civilization."